Let's back up a little over a year, when the MVFC was the 8-team Gateway Conference.Western Kentucky (Sun-Belt, except for D-1AA = FCS football) decided to go FBS, and play football with their Sun-Belt mates. That left the Gateway at 7 (5 MVC schools, Western Illinois (Summit, then called the Mid-Continent Conference), and Youngstown State (Horizon League)).

NDSU and SDSU had just moved up to D-1, joined the Mid-Con, and were playing football in the unstable 5-team Great West (that will continue to lack an auto-bid at least until they grow to 6 schools).

NDSU and SDSU looked at a map, and saw the Gateway as geographically desirable, and the football home of new conference mates Western Illinois, and having an auto-bid to the FCS playoffs.

The Gateway wanted their numbers a bit higher than 7, (with 6 being the minimum "critical mass" for an auto-bid).NDSU and SDSU had already demonstrated that they were very competitive at the FCS football level, and so a marriage was consummated, which took the Gateway to 9 members.

Both schools paid a hefty (for them) 6-figure entrance fee. At the time, the Gateway (soon to change names to the MVFC) could see that their next logical expansion (if and when they decide to expand) will be North Dakota U and South Dakota U (as they are right in the Gateway footprint, have built-in rivalries, and will be following NDSU and SDSU right into the Mid-Con (now Summit).

So right now the Gateway/MVFC is happy with their 3 Summit members (WIU, NDSU, SDSU), and those schools are happy enough with the MVFC.

Rather than destroy the MVFC, the better arrangement would be:WAC ultimately expands by taking a few Big Sky (Sacramento State / Montanas ?) / Big West football schools (UCDavis, Cal Poly ?). Doesn't matter which...Big Sky will react by grabbing remaining western football schools (Southern Utah from the Summit, UCDavis, Cal Poly).At that point, North Dakota and South Dakota will want to have been invited into / bought their way into the MVFC.

So the MVFC will then have 5 MVC teams (Ind. State, Ill. State, Southern Illinois (Carbondale), Mo State, Northen Iowa),5 Summit teams (Western Illinois, NDSU, SDSU, North Dakota, South Dakota), and maybe Youngstown State, if they haven't jumped to the MAC or something.

* If the Summit League invites North Dakota, they will have 6 football playing members. This will allow them to sponsor football, if they so choose.

* If the Summit formed a football league included only these 6 teams and no one else, it would mean that SDSU, NDSU, and WIU would have to leave the MVFC, and give up playing in one of the powerhouse FCS leagues, and one with an FCS playoff autobid. I don't think the Summit wants to do that to its own members. Also, this leaves 2 conferences with only 6 members each; yes the MVFC would keep its autobid but it makes scheduling harder when you have only 6 members in your conference.

* I propose that the Summit League sponsor a 12-team FCS conference, including 6 of their own members, plus 6 affiliates (the rest of the MVFC):

Yes it's not ideal to be traveling to Southern Utah, but it enables the Summit to sponsor football, and this arrangement seems to protect everyone's interests (and would also inherit the MVFC autobid). Perhaps playing in this conference might help build up Southern Utah's program a little, to the point where they could be considered Big Sky worthy. Then the Summit could replace them in all sports with a regionally appropriate team, perhaps a D-II upgrade (Nebraska-Omaha? One of the Minnesota schools?)

There is also a possibility, since the Missouri Valley Conference proper has 10 teams, that they could expand and bring in football playing members. This would enable the MVC to sponsor FCS football outright (unlike the current MVFC, which is separate administratively), and also prevent the inclusion of Southern Utah as an affiliate, which would make most members happy.

Any thoughts? Would the Missouri Valley Conference consider expansion as a preventative measure against Summit League football sponsorship?

There is also a possibility, since the Missouri Valley Conference proper has 10 teams, that they could expand and bring in football playing members. This would enable the MVC to sponsor FCS football outright (unlike the current MVFC, which is separate administratively), and also prevent the inclusion of Southern Utah as an affiliate, which would make most members happy.

Any thoughts? Would the Missouri Valley Conference consider expansion as a preventative measure against Summit League football sponsorship?

It would be that simple...just invite NDSU and SDSU and the blockade has been made.

It would be that simple...just invite NDSU and SDSU and the blockade has been made.

Would suggest that you take a look at NDSU's basketball facility (the Bison Sports Arena). No where near the quality that the MVC would ever consider. NDSU's basketball facility almost rivals SDSU's football stadium (Caughlin Alumni) for third-rate fan experience.

The MVC does not tecchnically sponsor football as an MVC sport.The MVFC (formerly Gateway) Conference FCS (1-AA) and the Pioneer Conference FCS (non-scholarship) are run out of the MVC office. Patty Viverito (asst commissioner of the MVC) is commissioner of BOTH the MVFC and Pioneer.A portion of the membership of both conferences are MVC schools, so the MVC set up both football leagues for the convenience of the MVC members in those leagues, but realized that non-MVC affiliates would be required to make both leagues viable. Because the MVFC and Pioneer and not techinically part of the MVC operations, the non-MVC schools are do not have a lesser standing than the MVC member schools.

The Summit used to have the same arrangement with the Great West Football Conference (GWFC), as this provided a football forum for members NDSU and SDSU (replaced by North Dakota and South Dakota) and Southern Utah. The GWFC was operated out of the Summit (formerly Mid-Con) office, but since the Great West went all-sports, the GWFC moved to being operated by the Great West Conference (I think, I have not verified this, but it would seem to be a huge conflict of interest if this did not occur).

Because the MVFC is well-established, and the MVC COULD maneuver to protect its existence against a raid by the Summit (which assumes that WIU, NDSU, and SDSU would want to mess with their MVFC membership), such a raid seems very unlikely to happen.

I fearlessly predict that not long after the North Dakota naming issue gets resolved and North Dakota is invited and accepts membership in the Summit, both North Dakota and South Dakota will contact the MVFC about eventually becoming football members.

One point to make.Because the MVFC is well-established, and the MVC COULD maneuver to protect its existence against a raid by the Summit (which assumes that WIU, NDSU, and SDSU would want to mess with their MVFC membership), such a raid seems very unlikely to happen.

I fearlessly predict that not long after the North Dakota naming issue gets resolved and North Dakota is invited and accepts membership in the Summit, both North Dakota and South Dakota will contact the MVFC about eventually becoming football members.

This I'm not so sure about. Adding UND and USD means the MVc goes from 9 football members to 11 members. That's a tough number. 9 is ideal as all schools can play each other, 4 home, 4 away. With 11 that's not the case.

But if the MVC were to expand their overall conference from 10 to 12 by inviting NDSU and SDSU, they'd have some problems with basketball scheduling, but football would remain the same.

Because the MVFC is well-established, and the MVC COULD maneuver to protect its existence against a raid by the Summit (which assumes that WIU, NDSU, and SDSU would want to mess with their MVFC membership), such a raid seems very unlikely to happen.

Does that mean also that you don't see a possibility of the Summit League raiding the ENTIRE MVFC (basically, the current MVFC + North Dakota + South Dakota + Southern Utah = 12 = 2 six-team divisions)? This would protect everyone's interest except that travel to Southern Utah would be involved. But Southern Utah is needed to ensure:

1) The Summit has 6 members to sponsor football2) The Summit has 12 total football members, including 6 affiliates, in order to divide into divisions for scheduling purposes

If this scenario doesn't happen, then I don't see any way that the Summit would sponsor football, which would mean that the MVC would not have to expand beyond their current 10.

This leaves the question: What is the likelihood of a 12-team Summit League football conference including Southern Utah?

Any chance that Youngstown State would bail on such an arrangement to play Football in another conference?

If an attractive conference in the Northeast came along (A10 or Am East-sponsored football from some northern CAA teams, or the NEC going to full scholarships), I could see Youngstown State going east. Right now the CAA is a bit too crowded. If this were to happen I would expect to see a 10-team MVFC (5 MVC and 5 Summit).

For markets, you have Cincy, Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis and Denver. Of course, in the perfect world you'd have DePaul (chicago) and Marquette (Milwaukee) but that isn't gonna happen. In fact, it's likely Xavier and either Dayton/St. Louis would be in the Big East (basketball split) by then.

The problem is this would make too much sense. That and I'm not really sure X and Dayton want to play with those schools. Xavier doesn't really consider Butler to be in the same class (and it took X leaving for the A-10 for Butler to become a force in the Horizon/MCC), they're more waiting for a BE split to occur and jump in with their fellow Catholic schools, until then they're happy in the A-10. I also don't see the MVC private schools eager to jump ship either. Bradyley, Creighton, Drake, and Evansville are all comfortable in their partnership with the state schools, and really the only changes they want to see are adding Butler, however the lack of an appropriate 12th school is gumming that up. The Dak States actually make a good 2nd choice if the MVC wants to go to 12, as they're already in the MVFC, and their basketball pedigree is starting to look attractive, as NDS's men and SDS's women won the Summit in their first year eligible.

HORIZON(10)adds might be some more attractive options, but okIUPUIOakland

A-10(12)adds Never. The A10 has a list of schools they have had discussions with in the past about expansion: Holy Cross, Siena, BU, Detroit and Butler...all top the CAA options in the eyes of the A10. Both schools you mentioned are in A10 markets (Richmond, GW)..VCUGeorge Mason

CAA(12)adds Never. The AE4 left the AE so they wouldn't have to play schools like UNH. As for Davidson, it's doubtful that the CAA would seek a private school that doesn't play football at the same level. Based on the last round of expansion, it's likely that the CAA would be happy to get back to 10 schools...although I just don't see the schools you mentioned leaving.DavidsonNew Hampshire

SoCon(12)adds Perhaps. southland could look east too.Jacksonville St.

OVC(12)adds in 2011 have been mentioned before and the OVC has no problems with D2 upgradesN.AlabamaN.Kentucky

AEC(10)adds in 2011 Regionally makes sense. CCSU football could upgrade to form AE footballLeMoyneC.Conn St.

NEC(12) adds Still doubtful. NJIT is just a bad programNJIT

Summit(12)adds in 2011; Not a chance in hell Denver leaves the Sunbelt for that sorry group.DenverUTPAHouston BaptistChicago St.Utah ValleyOklahoma City

Big West(10) adds in 2011 Would love to see UCSD upgradeCS BakersfieldUCSD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum